Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 versus NVIDIA GRID K2
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and NVIDIA GRID K2 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- 7.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 30 Watt versus 225 Watt
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 399 versus 319
- 9.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3285 versus 344
- 9.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3285 versus 344
| Caractéristiques | |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt versus 225 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 399 versus 319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3285 versus 344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3285 versus 344 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GRID K2
- 3.7x plus de vitesse du noyau: 745 MHz versus 200 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 2x 95.36 GTexel / s billion / sec versus 10.4 GTexel / s
- 76.8x plus de pipelines: 2x 1536 versus 40
- 44x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2x 2,289 gflops versus 104.0 gflops
- 2.3x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2737 versus 1192
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6371 versus 2095
- 3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6371 versus 2095
- 2.1x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10471 versus 5064
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 745 MHz versus 200 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 2x 95.36 GTexel / s billion / sec versus 10.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2x 1536 versus 40 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2x 2,289 gflops versus 104.0 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2737 versus 1192 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6371 versus 2095 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6371 versus 2095 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10471 versus 5064 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K2
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
| Nom | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1192 | 2737 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 399 | 319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2095 | 6371 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2095 | 6371 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5064 | 10471 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3285 | 344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3285 | 344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.943 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 968.568 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.51 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 32.988 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 114.144 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 312 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 312 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GRID K2 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Haswell GT3e | GK104 |
| Date de sortie | 27 May 2013 | 11 May 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 644 | 975 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $5,199 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 200 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 104.0 gflops | 2x 2,289 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 40 | 2x 1536 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 10.4 GTexel / s | 2x 95.36 GTexel / s billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 392 million | 3,540 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 8-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| Genre de mémoire | eDRAM | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
| RAM maximale | 2x 4 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 2x 160.0 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 2x 256 Bit | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 avec des autres
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1000
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
ATIMobility Radeon X2300
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
ATIRadeon HD 2600 XT
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3430
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
AMDFirePro M5100
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
